Thank You For Arguing

Thank You For Arguing outlines the importance of arguments and rhetoric and teaches you how to persuade other people by setting clear goals for your conversations, identifying core issues, using logic, being the kind of person that can win arguments, and much more.

The art of argumentation, also known as rhetoric, is much more than a screaming match between two angry people. It traces back to ancient Greece and involves skills that help the arguer effectively persuade others.

There is a misconception that an argument has to come to an agreement. However, the goal needs to be a consensus. A consensus means there is a shared faith in the outcome. In short, the goal of an argument shouldn’t be to win but rather to win your audience over.

When comparing couples who broke up versus had long-lasting marriages, professor John Gottman found both had the same amount of disputes. The difference, however, was the couples whose marriages lasted solved their issues by reaching a shared outcome. So simply put, they argued, while the couples who broke up just fought.

What we can learn here is that coming into an argument just to win isn’t a good way to argue. So what’s the better way? Greek philosopher Aristotle believed we should use the art of seduction, which he thought was the strongest argumentation. Through seducing your audience, you can persuade them to want the same thing as you and you can reach a consensus.

Have you ever been in an argument and there just seemed like there was no way out? The author teaches the reason arguments come to an end without a resolution is because the people arguing are debating two separate core issues. Aristotle believed every argument was based on one of three issues. First, there is blame. For example, this is something like “Who left the milk out on the counter?” Second, there are values. An example of this would be, “Should the death penalty be legal?” Lastly, there are arguments on choice, which we see in questions like, “Does it make sense to relocate to Japan?” So why should we bother identifying which type of argument we’re dealing with? Because if we don’t, we can’t come to a positive outcome. Aristotle believed each of the three types of argument corresponded to a different tense. Blame corresponded to the past, values to present, and choice to future. For example, if a wife is trying to convince her husband to turn his music down, she might criticize him for playing the Rolling Stones too loudly. The husband responds, “You just hate my music, that’s what this is about.” The woman’s mistake here is that she made an argument about…